We've got some progress in the other legal case Apple is involved in. The California case, Apple vs. Psystar, is more or less a done deal, but the Florida case, Psystar vs. Apple, is only just beginning. As it promised it would do, Apple has now asked the court in California to either dismiss the Florida case, or transfer it to California. Apple is also asking for a permanent injuction against Psystar. Through this motion, we also gain some juicy insight into Psystar's sales projections - and more interestingly, how many machines the clone maker actually sold.

As a long-time Apple owner, Apple Developer and Apple stockholder. And the son of two lawyers I see this case from an enlightened and biased POV. Apple likely does not mind the Hackintosh effort. If that was the case it would not be beyond the companies resources to stop it. As a matter of fact it still is not. When OS X first came out there was a utility called Unsupported Utility X or something like that allowed user to install OS X on Beige Units and clones (with a least a real G3 or G4 upgrade card) This provided many users the ability to get a feel for the OS and to understand it on a technical level without buying a new Mac. Apple did not go after the users or make it hard because many of the people who would run Unsupported Utility X build a clone will buy an entry level machine next go around. C'mon anybody can afford a Mini, and the iMac is a lot of bang for the buck. But if you do not want to and you have the skills then you can install OS X on a generic PC. However if you have those skills then you should also understand that Apple owes you nothing in the way of support. This doesn't dilute the brand. One does not reasonably expect a crApple to work like an Apple or put it into production work.
However that expectation of Hackintosh == future sales is silly if there are licensed clones and even sillier if there are unlicensed cloners. Yes Apple Makes a lot of Macs and makes a lot of money selling them. Millions of dollars flow back into Research and Development. That is the nature of Business and that is the reward for having to dance in the same Bullring with both Microsoft and Dell (or 2 separate rings). Which is why Apple needs R&D. As a programmer I do not expect that all of my code can be GPL some is corporate, some is 'korny kludges & an hairy hax'/Dice Raw and Functional but I do not desire that someone can take my product and sell it as their R&D. What Apple is doing is legal and sensible and I would expect anyone who had a brand to protect to make the same decision. Apple has a strong brand that is why you might want to have on or sell one. And there is a lot a value in that brand. The issue is not how many units they sold or planned to sell or were capable of selling. The issue is weather a closed source OS is protected by the same copyrights as any other product. Apple is Apple the same way that Nike is Nike and Guinness is Guinness.
Bottom line and I think it is really quite fair. If you can afford the real thing then get one if you cannot then make a Hackintosh. If you like it then you next machine might be a Mac -- But do not try to make a Business Model out of it. Would it be cool and legal to take an XP or Vista Disk from a Dell and install it on a Compaq? How about starting a store to sell them and plan on selling them by the millions? Theft is theft. If you like a company support it if you do not like a company ignore it (Microsoft is not exactly relevant to where I am going)

The issue is not how many units they sold or planned to sell or were capable of selling. The issue is weather a closed source OS is protected by the same copyrights as any other product. Apple is Apple the same way that Nike is Nike and Guinness is Guinness.

You are allowed to buy a pair of Nike shoes and resell them to anyone, they are a product, you can buy it and sell it again. You can likewise wear those Nike shoes with any pants of your choice.

The issue here is if an OS is licensed or not. Apparently in the US it is licensed and therefore not a product like anything else.

If Apple were selling shoes they would be restricting the choice of pants to only "Apple pants" and sue retailers that were selling pants not approved by Apple together with their "Apple shoes".